Chapter 9.5—Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit Susan Charnley 1 and Jonathan Long2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range Chapter 9.5—Managing Forest Products for Community Benefit Susan Charnley 1 and Jonathan Long2 Summary Forest products harvesting and use from national forest lands remain important to local residents and communities in some parts of the Sierra Nevada science synthesis area. Managing national forests for the sustainable production of timber, biomass, nontimber forest products, and forage for livestock can help support forest- based livelihoods in parts of the region where they are socially and economically important, thereby contributing to social and economic sustainability and com- munity resilience. This chapter provides context for understanding the social and economic dimensions of timber production, biomass utilization, nontimber forest product harvesting, and grazing in the synthesis area, and associated management issues. The chapter also points out ways in which managing forest products for community benefit may also benefit forest and rangeland ecosystems. At the end of each section is a “Management Implications” discussion that summarizes find- ings from the literature about the strategies forest managers might pursue to help maintain California’s wood products industry, increase biomass utilization from national forests, and support nontimber forest product harvesting and grazing on Sierra Nevada national forests. Introduction This chapter examines timber production, biomass removal, nontimber forest product (NTFP) harvesting, and grazing, synthesizing the scientific literature that addresses how these activities can be supported on Sierra Nevada national forests to help sustain the livelihoods of community residents who participate in them. Mining is not addressed because it is no longer considered to be a significant economic activity in the Sierra Nevada (Duane 1999, Stewart 1996), and because of a lack of recently published literature about mining in Sierra Nevada communities. Recreation and tourism are addressed in chapter 9.1, “Broader Context for Social, Economic, and Cultural Components.” 1 Research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205. 2 Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618. 629 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247 Traditional forms of commodity production (e.g., timber production, grazing, and mining) from national forests in the Sierra Nevada are no longer as prominent as they were in the past (Duane 1999, Erman and SNEP Science Team 1996). Nev- ertheless, timber production and grazing remain locally important. Stewart (1996) found that recreation, timber, and agriculture were the employment sectors most dependent on Sierra Nevada ecosystems, and that the natural resources from these ecosystems generating the highest revenues were water, timber, livestock, and other agricultural products, in that order. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project identified six distinct social and eco- nomic subregions in the Sierra Nevada (Doak and Kusel 1996, Stewart 1996). An analysis by Duane (1999) also identified six distinct subregions of the Sierra Nevada based on social criteria. Although the subregional boundaries differ slightly, their overall characterizations are consistent (Duane 1999). Timber production is most prevalent in the northern Sierra Nevada counties; grazing is found mainly in the eastern Sierra Nevada and in the oak woodland ecosystems of the western Sierra Nevada; agriculture occurs largely on the west side, in the central and southern por- tions of the synthesis area; and recreation and tourism dominate the economies of the greater Lake Tahoe basin and the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada. Neverthe- less, many communities and counties in the Sierra Nevada subregions have mixed economies, as characterized by Doak and Kusel (1996) and Duane (1999). Some are still more natural resource dependent (timber, grazing); some have economies based largely on natural amenity values; and some are close to large urban areas that provide diverse economic opportunities. In addition, many counties contain communities that are highly variable in terms of socioeconomic well-being (Doak and Kusel 1996). Thus, the relevance of the forest products management strategies discussed in this chapter will vary by place across the region, depending upon the nature of forest-community relations in particular locations. Current national forest management policy calls for approaches that both accomplish ecological restoration goals and produce forest products to benefit local communities and economies (USDA FS 2007, 2010). Such approaches can contrib- ute to socioecological well-being and resilience in a number of ways: (1) supporting community residents who maintain forest-based livelihoods in rural areas where alternative job opportunities are limited; (2) helping to produce goods valued by society; (3) maintaining the workforce and physical infrastructure needed to accom- plish forest restoration on federal lands; and (4) helping to conserve the biodiversity and ecosystem integrity of working forests and rangelands on the private and tribal lands that are ecologically and socioeconomically interdependent with federal lands (Charnley et al. 2014). 630 Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range This chapter focuses first on timber production and the wood products industry. It then moves on to address biomass removal and utilization, NTFPs, and lastly, graz- ing. The chapter concludes by suggesting some of the ways in which managing forest products for community benefit may also benefit forest and rangeland ecosystems. Timber Production and the Wood Products Industry Trends in Harvesting, Employment, and the Industry Detailed accounts of conditions and trends in California’s wood products industry can be found in Morgan et al. (2004, 2012), upon which the following discussion is based. California has been among the top softwood lumber-producing states in the United States since the 1940s. The wood products industry in California is influenced by a number of variables, including national and international economic conditions, markets, technology, public policy and regulations, and available timber inventories. National forests have been an important source of timber for Califor- nia’s wood products industry since the 1960s. Although a severe recession and weak markets caused a drop in timber production and related employment in the early 1980s, this dip was followed by a recovery that lasted through the end of the 1980s. Since the early 1990s, the availability of timber—particularly from federal lands— has been a major factor influencing California’s wood products industry. Timber harvests from national forests declined during the 1990s because of policy and legal constraints on harvesting related to the protection of old-growth forests and threat- ened and endangered species, restrictions on harvesting in unroaded areas, and timber sale appeals and litigation. At the same time, state regulations caused timber harvests from state and private lands to decrease. In the 2000s, timber harvest on California national forests has been driven more by restoration goals (e.g., hazard- ous fuels reduction) than by timber production goals (Christensen et al. 2008). An economic recession in the early 2000s, declines in housing construction since 2006, and increased imports of lumber from Canada following expiration of the Canadian softwood lumber agreement in 2001 have caused the price of wood products to be low for much of the 2000s. Market conditions combined with other factors, such as increasing fuel prices and reduced timber availability, caused a further decline in California’s wood products industry during the first decade of the 2000s (Morgan et al. 2012). Trends in California’s timber harvests are reflected in figure 1. The total volume of timber harvested in California in 1988 was 4.84 billion board feet, and in 2010, it was 1.29 billion board feet—73 percent below what it was in 1988 and 74 percent below what it was in 1972. The volume of timber harvested from Sierra Nevada national forests was 1.29 billion board feet in 1988, and 183.8 million board feet in 631 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 Volume harvested (million board feet Scribner) 1,000 Total California harvests* Private lands Figure 1—Volume of timber harvested from all lands, private forest lands, national forest lands, and 10 Sierra Nevada national forests All California national forests in California, 1972–2010. Source:0 Ruderman 1984, 1985; Warren 1989–2011. * = Harvest data from state lands were missing for 2003–2010, and data from lands overseen by the Bureau of Indian Affairs were missing for 2001–2010; they are not included in the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests** totals for those years. Harvest data1972 for Bureau of Land Management lands were <1 million board feet for 2001, 2003, and 2004, and are not included for those years. ** =1973 Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo, and Sequoia National Forests, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.1974 Data for Sierra Nevada forest harvests were unavailable prior to 1988 from the Warren (1989–2011) and Ruderman (1984, 1985) reports.1975 1976